Search results

I am sorry that you feel it was not helpful. I will note that the text you quoted was not a response to @kjdavies asking about the meaning of revocation in contract law (i.e. as used in treatises, judges and lawyers), but it was a response to @kjdavies asking about the meaning of revocation in...

I kind of feel like a lot of these are the same questions coming up over and over again. At some point, we need to make a FAQ. "Irrevocable" does not have an inherent meaning divorced from context and divorced from the parties' intentions. In a very real sense, "irrevocable" means whatever the...

That's not what OGL 1.0(a) says. It defines Contributors as those persons who have contributed Open Game Content; not those persons who who have contributed Open Game Content to which this copy of the license is attached. If taken literally, this means that WOTC and every other Open Game...

It seems like an unduly harsh standard to fault Kit Walsh for not fully exploring all relevant issues; admitting the original analysis was incorrect and posting a correction is pretty darn good. The part I would quibble with is the opening line: "As the community has scrutinized Wizards of the...

I note that you indicated you would say that "OGL 1.0" or "1.0" you are also referring to "1.0(a)." However, then you then proceeded to discuss "OGL" which you have not defined. I can typically tell what you mean from context, but accuracy is important here. Nobody can tell you the answer to...

Unfortunately, there are both facts that are not specified and a degree of legal indeterminacy on the issues of revocation. I'd be happy to discuss directly with you to help you understand in more detail, but before I do so I would ask that you review my prior post at WotC - What's All This...

I think both perspectives are useful; its a matter of emphasis and relevance. For example, I think @Steel_Wind did good service to remind everyone that, regardless of close legal analysis of contractual doctrine, when it comes to actual litigation, it is very important to be able to tell a story...

For these reasons, I suspect that a court would pay more attention to the record of what Ryan Dancey said and wrote when he was still employed at WOTC contemporaneously with the issuance of OGL 1.0(a), rather than current testimony about what his intentions were at the time. From what I...

Although my practice does involve a lot of transaction work (including drafting agreements), those agreements are active for a long time (and my clients stay with me) in a way that "transactional" doesn't really capture. I've had plenty of opportunities to see agreements I've drafted a decade...

I'm not sure whether it should matter or not, but I don't pretend to be anonymous. This is me: Brian M. McDaniel and Brian Michael McDaniel # 200166 - Attorney Licensee Search

There could be a distinction between "revocation" and "termination" of a license. For example, there is plenty of commentary among attorneys that are engaged in licensing that propose to differentiate between "revocation" and "termination." In many cases, this is because in certain contexts is...

[Deleting accidental double post]

Regarding the status of sub-licenses: 1. The discussion of sub-licenses largely seems to treat contractual relationships as if they were property rights (enforceable against the world) and not as private orderings between the parties (enforceable against each other). To illustrate: Suppose A...

Regarding the need for licenses to state that they are irrevocable: The meaning of an agreement is the intention of the parties to the agreement, either as expressed in the agreement itself (the usual method) or through parole evidence of intention when there is ambiguity in the agreement. Very...

Quoted to endorse, although I think the issue is broader than VTTs. In the OSR movement, we have seen people use OGL 1.0a and "extend" the SRD to create new games that are compatible with 1e D&D, BECMI D&D, Holmes D&D, etc. If OneD&D is supposed to be broadly compatible with 5e D&D, it would be...

I'm still seeing a lot of confusion about OGL 1.1 and what it means. In order to create a digestible summary that can be easily referenced, in this post I'm going to reiterate the legal conclusion I reached above, with a very minimum of commentary. In particular, this post will not explain or...

Concur. Silence/inaction is a fact pattern that comes up frequently enough that there is both caselaw and statutory enactments that address it. Under the common law of contracts silence or failure to act usually cannot be grounds for acceptance of an offer. E.g. "Failure to respond to this...

It is difficult to give a hard doctrinal answer to this question. As a practical matter, the question does not come up frequently, so is not covered by the standard treatises or leading cases. I'd be surprised if there is not some caselaw on the subject, but precisely because it is a rare...

It is there; it is in the preamble which states "by using Licensed Content in this manner, You agree to the terms of this agreement." It is neither necessary nor desireable in drafting contracts for each obligation to be preceded by "the parties agree ..." ----------------------------------...

I note that a purported OGL 1.1 has been posted here: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/ For purposes of convenience, I will assume that this is a document that WOTC has proposed. I also note that it contains two different agreements: one titled "OGL 1.1 Non-Commercial" and one titled "OGL 1.1...